Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by Joonie73, Feb 5, 2004.
Give me a fucking break. He had the perfect style to get stopped by Trinidad.
Thats called a top ten based on achievments, talent, competition and head-to-head as a tiebreaker Val. Stop flying off the deep end and read.
How many people stopped Basilio as a welterweight Val? It is very hard to debate with people who view Trinidad as a all-time great.
This is a "who-beat-who" thread.
Take a look at the fighters that TRULY gave Trinidad problems...they had HIGH and they had MOVEMENT.
Basilio lacked both.
My post was in regards to a question asked by soemone else Tino. Read my original post on the topic and you don't even need to ask this again.
By the way?another fighters that DESERVES to be in the 147 lbs is Pernell Whitaker. I don?t care what anyone else thinks.
Doesnt Whitaker struggling with McGirt, Rivera and Hurtado make any impression on you whatsoever?
[ February 07, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Tam-Tam ]
That's pretty obvious.
Some great fighters are missing,But i dont give a shit about this fucking list.
No Chavez makes this list a joke.
Chavez matches up pretty badly with a number of post 1940 lightweights. I love Chavez, but even I can see that.
Explain please how Pryor was a better LW than Chavez.
Even if we are 'rounding off' and going with the 8 original classes, I don't see how Pryor beats Chavez at 135 or 140.
In light of the fact that they never fought, surely it comes down to who did they beat, yes?
I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who took on just about everybody like Chavez did, so the Pryor pick is confusing.
Pryor was quicker then Chavez and head-to-head I favour him @ 135 OR 140.
I don't think Aaron belongs on the list either though, just personally.
this is the thing though bro. imo chavez was one of those fighters that you always look at and think you're a chance to beat. i can understand the who beats who list and the difficulty in putting chavez there basewd on mythical matchup sense. but i dunno man, prime chavez...he was a chance against alot of 'em and i'd be hard pressed to pick against chavez in some of these matchups.
chavez was just a tough animal. he never quite had the ferocity of a duran, never quite had the technique of a sweet pea, never quite had the raw talent of a sanchez or the fluidity of an arguello. but but at the end of the day, he won how many straight ? he defied his physical form.
[ February 09, 2004, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Remus ]
I'm not an expert on the flys but based on what I've seen, read, and studied, here are a few observations.
1. Harada is overrated at flyweight. He lost to a nobody and only beat Pone, a fighter whom many don't think too highly of anyways.
2. Chang was better than I expected yet not the God some claim he was.
3. Mark Johnson beats them all. Those greats wouldn't know what hit them. Slick, black, southpaw, frustrating combo to deal with!!
1. Carlos Zarate
2. Eder Jofre
3. Ruben Olivares
4. Alfonso Zamora
5. Fighting Harada
6. Orlando Canizales
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Alexis Arguello
5. Azumah Nelson
6. Tony Canzoneri
1. Roberto Duran
2. Pernell Whittaker
3. Julio Cesar Chavez
4. Ike Williams
5. Alexis Arguello
6. Tony Canzoneri
1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Thomas Hearns
4. Jose Napoles
5. Roberto Duran
6. Kid Gavilan
1. Ray Robinson
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Roy Jones
5. Dick Tiger
6. Bernard Hopkins
1. Ezzard Charles
2. Bob Foster
3. Michael Spinks
4. Roy Jones Jr.
5. Archie Moore
6. Billy Conn
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Mike Tyson
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Sonny Liston
[ February 10, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
No one claimed Chang was God.
yes you did. you specifically said "chang is God".
Heres my rough one.
A great list overall but a few very strong disagreements, Craig.
1. I believe you have Ohba way too high at flyweight. He certainly is not beating either Harada or Chang & I would say this with about as much confidence as is possible in a match-up involving greats.
There was a long, comprehensive thread on Ohba at Delphi already so I will try to be succinct. Ohba is a classic case where a fighter is simultaneously under-rated in the West & at the same time hopelessly over-rated in Asia & among some Western fans who follow Asian boxing. While Ohba's Sanchez-like early death at 23 has magnified his attributes & accomplishments on the one hand, it conversely hid serious flaws that would have been his downfall v. better opponents on the other hand. To begin with, accomplishment-wise, Ohba's sterling achievements are 2 very difficult fights with 2 arguably borderline greats: Betulio Gonzalez & Chartchai Chionoi. The Gonzalez fight could've gone either way (in fact, you can see Gonzalez besides himself when the verdict is announced) & Ohba was nearly knocked out in the 1st round of the Chionoi fight. Not only were these guys lesser fighters than Harada & Chang, but their styles perfectly suited Ohba. Both Gonzalez & Chionoi were more traditional boxer-punchers & against them, Ohba could utilize his assets well: his jab, long overhead right & his height & reach advantage. However, Ohba was physically frail & thus susceptible to being pushed around, didn't deal well when opponents swarmed & pressed him & finally didn't have much in the way of short distance offensive game, as all of his money punches were long. All of these things would terribly disadvantage him v. either Harada or Chang. In fact, there is much that is similar among Ohba, Kingpetch & Chitalada in terms of build & style & I would honestly predict that Ohba v. either Harada or Chang would be similar to Harada v. Kingpetch I or Chang v. Chitalada I.
2. As you know, I rate Harada very highly but I think Zamora is a terrible stylistic match-up for him. Harada's chin was good but he was still knocked out by Medel & was in serious trouble in round 5 of Jofre I. Harada would come to rumble & eat his share of punches v. Zamora. And as hard as Medel & Jofre hit, Zamora is in another league. Zamora would knock him out in the mid-rounds.
3. I think Hearns beats everyone at welterweight except Robinson & Leonard. How would Gavilan, Griffith & Napoles beat him? Hearns is nearly impossible to out-box (as demonstrated v. Leonard, Benitez & Hill) because of his freakish height & reach, superb hand speed & his jab & overhand right. Nor do I see a knockout v. any of these guys since none of them possessed the one-punch power to really turn the tide with a punch the way Leonard or Barkley was able to do.
4. My low opinion of Joe Louis' worth in head-to-head scenarios are well-known. Tyson will come out faster, hit him harder (& possibly land more frequently due to superior hand speed) & absorb blows better. This fight has a blow-out written all over it.
[ February 10, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]
NO, actually my list is a piece of shit. I wrote it while checking my timetable for uni and looking at it, its pathetic.
I do agree with Zamora beating Harada, but I base my list on who beats more of the greats then the next guy. Zamora might beat Harada, but I don't believe he beats Ruben (close) Zarate (obviously not so close) or Jofre. I think Harada can possibly beat each and every one of them.
Tyson might beat Louis, but thats because Louis might be made for him. Tyson could be hit and rocked early though so I don't see how you could possibly be so confident in your prediction. No one knocked out Louis early and he faced his share of bangers. Either man can win or lose here. Once again, I think Louis does better against the top competition then does Tyson - whom I view as having a major problem with heavyweights with a jab and infighting skills - OR frustrating skills. Joe might have trouble with movers as evidenced by Conn and Walcott (Joe was past his best here) but name me a heavyweight besides Ali who could move for 15 rounds and stay away from Joe's fire for that long? I put it to you, that you cannot find one.
I also don't buy that Tyson lands more frequently. Combination punching between Louis and Tyson is not even comparable IMO and consider that Joe's jab was one of the better jabs in the divisions history and you seem to be looking at a different fighter entirely then the one I view as the best heavyweight of all-time.
Napoles could stick with Tommy outside for short periods and then get inside and rip holes in him inside. I think Napoles is somewhat of a bad matchup for Hearns. Also, I don't for a second believe Tommy boxes as good as Rodriguez. Griffith is a bad matchup, but frankly, Tommy isn't the 3rd best welterweight of all-time head to head. His chin and frail body are going to have him in trouble with guys who can match his speed outside, or his jab (Griffith could do this) and then work him inside like Leonard (Napoles, Grifith). Gavilan might not beat Hearns, but IMO he can beat every other man on the list with the exception of Robinson.
Separate names with a comma.